This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Race discrimination: Continued investigation of which employee was unaware was a detriment

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Garry v London Borough of Ealing [2001] IRLR 681 CA (4 other reports)

    • Courts of Appeal conflict over definition of detriment

      Date:
      1 October 2001

      Two apparently contradictory judgements address whether treatment must have any material consequences to constitute a detriment under discrimination law. Plus, cases on Tupe, termination payments and unfair dismissal for misconduct unrelated to employment

    • On appeal

      Date:
      25 September 2001

      Continuing our regular series spelling out the implications of important cases which have been heard recently in the appeal courts.

    • Case roundup: Race discrimination and payments on termination

      Date:
      4 September 2001

      This week's case roundup, covering the meaning of a "detriment" within race discrimination and payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment.

    • Broad construction of detrimental treatment

      Date:
      1 September 2001

      The Court of Appeal in Garry v London Borough of Ealing has found that a black employee was subjected to a "detriment" within the meaning of s.4(2)(c) of the Race Relations Act when, for reasons connected with her ethnic origin, an investigation by her employers into her activities was continued longer than an ordinary investigation would have been.

In Garry v London Borough of Ealing [2001] EAT 681, the Court of Appeal holds that when an employer continued an investigation into the activities of a black female employee for longer than an ordinary investigation would have taken, for reasons connected with her ethnic origin, the employer subjected her to a "detriment" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976.